Author
Topic: Film is still hard to beat (Read 57614 times)

Still enjoy the occasional roll of FP4 (always was an Ilford fanboy) through my F1n but just for fun would never dream of doing anything important/serious with it although it’s cost that mainly stops me doing more.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

I wonder how many times in the past 10+ years this conversation has taken place. and since I really couldn't be bothered to read through 6 pages of people giving their opinion I skipped to the end to say

It depends what you want to shot, what you want to do and who's going to see your work.

There are still a lot of high-end studio fashion shooters that will shoot film (mainly medium format of course) and totally swear by it for what work they do. Sure digital has it's place - hasselblad, phaseone etc - make perfectly amazing digital cameras for that kind of work yet there are still people favouring to shoot film.

Enlarging is one of the major issues with digital photography - of course it depends on what work you do - if you're doing the kind of commercial work that is going to be plastered on billboards that are 10 meters across - digital probably isn't the best way to go about that work.

For certain applications digital is better - a client wants something done at short notice and wants samples asap... digital is the way to go about that kind of work.

The kind of corporate head-shot work where clients will want to see results on the day, or even as you're shooting via a monitor - obviously digital is better in that respect.

as I said... it depends on what you want to shoot as to whether or not Film is better or Digital is better.

If in doubt - stock that fridge with as much 35/120 as you can get your hands on just in case! =D

I think digital is fine shot at lower iso. At iso 400 and up, I prefer film, because digital noise, more often than film grain, is UGLY. That said, I would never only shoot film, because of all the hassle and cost.

I only have experience shooting 35mm film.

There is barely any noise at ISO400 on digital and already tons with film.

Film is REALLY easy to best or beat or equal...the universe has changed....I moved on.

if it so easy care to prove it with images? What's your experience? What film have you worked with before? Do you often use auto features on your cameras? All of these are relevant questions.

Some film has much greater dynamic range than digital. With some film you have to be so precise with your exposure that just a little bit out renders a shot totally differently (i'm thinking Velvia 50 here). With digital of course you can delete and shoot again, but this disposability of digital is what is cheapening photography. Do you never try to challenge yourself or do you reach for the "auto HDR" button when you need a well exposed shot. Film is a great way of learning the essential skills that do actully apply to digital as well.

I shoot both film and digital and both are different mediums. The trouble with the "auto HDR" generation of photography is that in the race for a shot that reveals details in the shadows, images can lose their shape and dimension. They lose definition. Photography isn't just about what you can see but also about what is hidden. That is why it is an art.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions? Why talk at me??..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!! :-)http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne

I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions? Why talk at me??..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!! :-)http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne

The thing about art is that there is no right or wrong or right. That is why I do not speak in absolutes. You chose to.

sweetcancer

There is barely any noise at ISO400 on digital and already tons with film.

Maybe SOOC there isn't, but if you do anything to the image in post processing, at least with my 5D2, ugly banding and lot of shadow noise come to table. In film there is grain, yes, but it isn't ugly. (depending of course what film you use)

I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions? Why talk at me??..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!! :-)http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne